This Article proceeds in four Parts. Part II discusses informal
dispute resolution and notes the importance of informal dispute
resolution in certain societies where third-party counterinsurgencies
are ongoing.24 Part III provides evidence that targeting by the United
States has had an adverse impact on informal dispute resolution,
although it concedes that the exact nature and extent of that impact
is unclear. Part IV outlines the stewardship model and the legal
support for an implied-safe conduct theory. It then sketches the
theory's operation. This Part also includes discussion of the
consequences of the implied-safe conduct approach for two new types
of war fighting: drone signature strikes and autonomous systems in
which computers make certain decisions without ex ante human
review. Part V discusses some objections, including the concern that
the implied-safe conduct approach, like the protective model, unduly
constrains commanders' decisions. (excerpt)